research-code-skill
SolidCoding-standard enforcer for AI agents working inside a research (ML/DL) lab project. Its core job is twofold: (1) keep the project's fixed architecture intact across all coding work 鈥?never break or drift from the established structure; (2) enforce code-level conventions 鈥?naming, formatting, calling, and configuration 鈥?so every file is uniform. It codifies five authoritative systems as machine-executable Rule Cards (RC-*). It fuses thirteen authoritative references into four usage clusters so the agent never stacks them as separate checklists, plus a Karpathy-inspired behavioral discipline (Think Before Coding, Simplicity First, Surgical Changes, Goal-Driven Execution) layered above the mechanical cards: (1) Project Scaffold & Python Grammar (Lightning-Hydra-Template structure + Hydra configs + Google Python Style); (2) Model & Component Design (PyTorch Lightning Style Guide + timm named architectures + OpenMMLab Registry pattern); (3) Experiment Reproducibility (Hydra Config-First + FAIR data + SemVer/Git
Install
Quality Score: 78/100
Skill Content
Details
- Author
- SaltGardenia
- Repository
- SaltGardenia/research-code-skill
- Created
- 1 weeks ago
- Last Updated
- 1 weeks ago
- Language
- Python
- License
- MIT
Similar Skills
Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category
getff
Use when treating any codebase rule (architectural, naming, dependency, test-quality, contract, SLO) as an executable test that fails the build when violated, or when the user asks about enforcing code quality, fighting AI-generated code drift, setting up linters/tests/CI/pre-commit hooks, designing review processes, mutation testing, contract testing, fitness functions, observability-driven development, SLO-as-code, or any version of "how do I make my codebase resistant to AI agents breaking my conventions". Also trigger on any mention of ArchUnit, Stryker, Pact, dependency-cruiser, AI Factory (aif), Husky, lint-staged, ESLint flat config, Zod validation strategy, or shift-left/shift-right testing. Strongly trigger when the user mentions Claude Code, Cursor, or Copilot writing code that "looks fine but is wrong" — that is the core problem this skill addresses.
ai-code-governance
Governance workflow for AI coding agents such as Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, and Copilot Workspace. Use when implementing features, fixing bugs, refactoring, reviewing AI-generated code, adopting governance in an existing project, creating or updating AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, CODEX.md, architecture docs, project indexes, dependency policies, and coding standards. Enforces search-before-write, reuse of existing components/hooks/services/stores/utils/types, dependency control, small maintainable changes, verification, and clear change reports.
research
Researches an open-ended question — options, possible solutions, prior art, trade-offs, or how something works — and produces a durable, evidence-backed, adversarially-validated report that recommends an option without committing the team to any artifact. Use when you want to research approaches, weigh options, survey prior art or the state of the art, or understand how something works before committing to a direction. Does not diagnose a bug, failure, or root cause — use investigate. Does not specify a feature — use plan-a-feature. Does not create or update a coding standard — use coding-standard. Does not compare two concrete artifacts for gaps — use gap-analysis. Does not assess an existing module's architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback.